CH-2024-000293 - [2025] EWHC 2980 (Ch)

Fecha: 14-Nov-2025

Mr S – the Ombudsman’s conclusions and reasoning

44.

The Ombudsman considered that Mr S was notifying a “complaint”, rather than a “dispute”. He summarised that complaint at [3]:

3.1
He has been scammed by Brambles and the Eleven Scheme.
3.2
He received no annual statements and no advice as to how he can access his money. This has affected his mental health.

45.

Again, I have been given no chronology relevant to Mr S’s complaint, but I can derive the following matters from the Determination:

Mr S notified his complaint to the Ombudsman in “early 2022” [18].

ii)

Mr S said in his oral evidence that, in 2015, he was “getting a bit dubious” about his pension in the Eleven Scheme ([18]).

iii)

In 2021, Mr S made “further investigations” into Brambles and became aware that there were multiple claims that Brambles had been involved in previous scams ([21]). That finding suggests that, before 2021, Mr S had already made some investigations, but I was not referred to material that might suggest what information Mr S had, or should have had, as a result.

46.

At [21], the Ombudsman observed that Mr S’s acceptance, in cross-examination, that he was “getting a bit dubious” in 2015 caused him to re-evaluate whether Mr S’s complaint was made in time or not. However, the Ombudsman concluded at [21] that Mr S first knew, or ought reasonably to have known, of the acts and omissions of which he was complaining in 2021. That was a finding that Mr S’s complaint was in time by virtue of Regulation 5(1) since the complaint was notified to the Ombudsman in early 2022.